coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant is an Algerian national who was born in 1960 and was, at the time of the introduction of the application being detained in Safi Military Barracks, Safi.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant arrived in Malta on 24 June 2006 without documents, having travelled by boat from Libya in an irregular manner. Upon his arrival he was served with a removal order in accordance with Article 14 of the Immigration Act (“the Act”). The reason for his detention was given as being that under Article 5 of the Act, he was in Malta without leave. He was consequently detained at the police headquarters.
8.  On 26 June the applicant was questioned by the police and he gave a statement. On 28 June 2006 he was arraigned in court charged with aiding, assisting, counselling or procuring other persons to enter or to attempt to enter Malta or having conspired to that effect. He was remanded in custody.
9.  On 1 October 2006, pending proceedings, the applicant made a late preliminary application for refugee status, which was considered by the Refugee Commissioner as expressing his desire for recognition of refugee status.
10.  On 25 October 2006 the Court of Magistrates found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment.
11.  While in prison, on 17 April 2007, the applicant made a formal application for asylum and was interviewed on the same day.
12.  After serving his sentence, the applicant was released from prison on 27 June 2007 and was placed in a detention centre pending the determination of his asylum claim.
13.  The applicant's asylum application was rejected on 24 April 2007 and subsequently on appeal on 18 July 2007 as he had failed to provide convincing evidence that he would face a real risk or had a well-founded fear of persecution.
14.  The applicant remained in detention awaiting removal under the Government's immigration policy until 6 January 2009 when his removal order was lifted in view of the lack of prospects of his eventual deportation. The applicant claimed that the conditions of detention in Blocks C and B had been inappropriate. Both facilities had been overcrowded, particularly in the summer months, with inadequate sanitary and other facilities, limited medical care, no possibility of constructive activities and limited recreational opportunities. The applicant made reference to reports of the CPT, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner and the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament documenting such conditions.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 19 June 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court against several respondents, seeking ownership of a real estate.
6.  On 14 September 1995 a hearing was held. The court appointed an expert graphologist who filed an opinion on 12 March 1996. On 18 April 1996, 30 April 1997 and 21 January 1998 further hearings took place.
7.  On 15 September 1998 the court transferred the case to the Budapest Regional Court for reasons of competence. On 2 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court established its lack of competence. On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court appointed the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court to hear the case.
8.  On 25 May 2000, 9 January, 20 February, 18 April, 12 September 2001 and 18 January 2002 hearings were held. On 17 May 2002 a real estate expert was appointed whose opinion was filed on 9 September 2002. On 10 December 2002 the expert was invited to complete his opinion. The opinion was re-submitted on 17 February 2003.
9.  On 20 March 2003 and 14 January 2004 hearings took place. On 20 February 2004 the court gave judgment.
10.  On appeal, on 24 February, 2 June and 15 September 2005 the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a second instance court, heard the parties. On the latter date, it suspended the proceedings pending the termination of a closely related land register procedure.
11.  After the resumption of the case, on 19 December 2006 the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment. On 19 June 2009 the review bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zarubino in the Primorye Region.
5.  On 12 February 2001 the Khasanskiy District Court of the Primorye Region (the District Court) partly granted the applicant's tort action against a municipal housing maintenance company of the Khasanskiy District and awarded her 48,461.01 Russian roubles (RUB) as compensation for pecuniary damage and RUB 1,200 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The district court also ordered that the housing authority should repair the roof, the heating system and the water-pipes in the applicant's house.
6.  On 28 March 2001 the Primorye Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal, increased the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage by RUB 8,994.12 and upheld the remainder of the judgment.
7.  On 16 January 2002 the respondent company was declared insolvent and the insolvency procedure started.
8.  On 26 May 2003 the District Court index-linked the award of 12 February 2001 and held that the respondent company was to pay the applicant RUB 13,441.20. The judgment became final ten days later.
9.  By letter of 18 May 2005 an insolvency manager of the housing maintenance company had notified the applicant that the respondent company had been declared insolvent and that the debtor was to be released from claims that were unsatisfied in the insolvency proceedings, since there was a lack of assets. Accordingly, the applicant's claims could not be satisfied. The case materials do not contain further information on the insolvency proceedings.
10.  The judgments of 12 February 2001 and 26 May 2003 have not been enforced to date.
11.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance and the Primorye Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice for compensation for damage caused by the bailiffs' failure to enforce the judgment of 12 February 2001.
12.  On 4 February 2003 the District Court partly granted her action. The court found that the bailiff had failed to send the enforcement documents to the applicant in time and was inactive in obtaining the execution of the judgment. The court awarded the applicant RUB 5,000 against the local department of the Ministry of Justice as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and RUB 4,678.42 as compensation for expenses related to the enforcement and court proceedings against the regional department of the Ministry of Justice. The district court also held that the respondents were not under an obligation to pay the applicant RUB 40,642.50 because the bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the municipal company were pending and the applicant had been included in the register of the housing maintenance company creditors' claims. On 19 March 2003 the Primorye Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
13.  On 12 August 2003 RUB 9,678 of the court award had been paid to the applicant by the respondent authority.
14.  According to the Government, at some point the bailiff was dismissed on account of her failure to ensure timely enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour. On 12 February 2004 the District Court held that the bailiff should repay RUB 7,078 of damages to the authorities.
5.  The applicant was born in Kyrgyzstan in 1966. It appears that he currently lives in Kyrgyzstan.
6.  On 21 August 1996 the Investigation Department of the Ministry of National Security of Kyrgyzstan (“the Investigation Department”) indicted the applicant on serious fraud charges. According to the decision on indictment, the applicant had failed to pay for 150 TV sets which he had received under a consignment agreement with a joint stock company. On the same date the Investigation Department ordered the arrest of the applicant. On 27 August 1996 the applicant's name was put on a wanted list.
7.  On 9 July 2003 the applicant was arrested in Russia (see paragraph 13 below).
8.  On 29 August 2003 the General Prosecutor's Office of Russia received a request from their counterpart in Kyrgyzstan for the extradition of the applicant.
9.  On 6 April 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia authorised the extradition of the applicant to Kyrgyzstan. The applicant challenged the extradition order in court.
10.  On 13 May 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the extradition order as lawful and justified. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 29 July 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the decision of 13 May 2004 on appeal.
12.  From the submitted materials, it appears that, on an unspecified date after 29 July 2004, the applicant was extradited to Kyrgyzstan.
13.  On 9 July 2003 the applicant was arrested in Russia and held in custody, first at the Moscow-Paveletskiy temporary detention facility and then at remand prison no. 77/4 in Moscow.
14.  On 14 October 2003 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the detention pending extradition of the applicant under Article 466 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) without providing a time-limit for his detention.
15.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 13 May 2004 to the Supreme Court (see paragraph 10 above). In his appeal, he also stated that his detention from 9 July to 29 August 2003 had been unlawful because he had been detained without a court order and that the overall length of his detention had been excessive.
16.  In its decision of 29 July 2004 the Supreme Court (see paragraph 11 above) left without examination the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention.
6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Sofia.
7.  In 1966 his grandparents bought from the Sofia municipality an apartment of 73 square metres in the centre of the city, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1946.
8.  After the death of the applicant's grandparents his father inherited from them. In 1995 he conveyed the property to the applicant.
9.  On 19 February 1993 the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the apartment brought an action against the applicant's father under section 7 of the Restitution Law, arguing that his title to the property was null and void and seeking the restoration of their own title. They also brought a rei vindicatio action.
10.  In 2003 the applicant's father died and the applicant succeeded him in the proceedings.
11.  The proceedings ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 27 May 2005. The courts allowed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the contract whereby the applicant's grandparents had acquired the apartment had been null and void since the sale had not been approved by the Minister of Finance, as required by the relevant provisions applicable at the time, but by his deputy.
12.  In July or August 2005 the applicant and his family vacated the apartment. In November 2005 they were granted the tenancy of a municipally-owned apartment at a regulated price, where they moved in.
13.  The applicant could apply to receive compensation bonds within two months of the judgment of 27 May 2005. However, he only applied for bonds on 7 October 2005. On 26 March 2008 the regional governor dismissed the request as time-barred. On an appeal by the applicant, this decision was upheld by the courts.
14.  The relevant background facts, domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court's judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
5.  The applicants were born in 1935, 1956, 1963 and 1973 respectively. The first, third and fourth applicants live in Sofia and the second applicant lives in Adelaide, Australia.
6.  In 1977 the first applicant and her husband, who are the parents of the second, third and fourth applicants, bought from the Sofia municipality a flat of 261 square metres which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.
7.  On 18 August 1992 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought proceedings under section 7 of the 1992 Law on the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property against the first applicant and her husband, seeking to establish that their title was null and void. They also sought a rei vindicatio order.
8.  On 30 November 1995 the first applicant's husband died and the second, third and fourth applicants joined the proceedings as his heirs.
9.  On 17 April 1997 the Sofia District Court allowed the claimants' actions. On an appeal by the applicants, on 24 September 2002 its judgment was upheld by the Sofia City Court. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts' judgments on 28 July 2004. The courts found that in 1977 the first applicant and her husband had purchased the flat in breach of the law and their title had therefore been null and void.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Plovdiv.
6.  On 30 November 1992 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owners of a dwelling, purchased by the applicant's father form a subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence in 1967, brought an action for restitution against the applicant and Ms P.P., as heirs of the applicant's father, seeking restitution and a declaration that the 1967 transaction was null and void.
7.  Between February 1993 and January 1997 at least sixteen hearings were held. At least four of them were adjourned due to improper summoning and one upon the applicant's request.
8.  In a judgment of 15 May 1997 the Plovdiv District Court dismissed the claim.
9.  On appeal, at least six hearings were held before the Plovdiv Regional Court. One hearing was adjourned because the expert opinion had not been obtained in time, one was adjourned due to improper summoning, and one upon the applicant's request.
10.  In a judgment of 28 December 1999 the Regional Court upheld the previous court's judgement.
11.  On further appeal, on 10 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination due to unspecified procedural breaches.
12.  By a judgment of 30 November 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court set aside the judgment of 1997 and declared the plaintiffs owners of the disputed real estate.
13.  On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's judgment.
14.  On an unspecified date the Executive Agency “Management of the Private State Property of the Ministry of Defence” filed a request for reopening, claiming that under the relevant legislation it should have been a party to the proceedings as a successor of the relevant subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence.
15.  On 14 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation granted reopening, set aside the judgment of 23 April 2003 and remitted the case to the Plovdiv Regional Court for new examination. The court held that in February 2000 the Executive Agency “Management of the Private State Property of the Ministry of Defence” had succeeded the subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, which had been constituted as a party in the proceedings in 1993, and therefore should have been summoned in its stead.
16.  By a judgment of 16 December 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court again declared the plaintiffs owners of the real estate. On 17 April 2006 the applicant appealed.
17.  By a final judgment of 13 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the lower court's judgment and rejected the plaintiffs' claims, thus deciding the case in favour of the applicant.
18.  The number of hearings held between December 1999 and April 2003 and between May 2004 and April 2007 is not clear.
19.  On 6 June 2007 the plaintiffs filed a request for reopening.
20.  By a judgment of 6 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the request.
5.  The applicant was born in 1954. She lives in Gdańsk-Zaspa.
6.  By a judgment of 30 March 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against a second‑instance administrative decision by which she had been refused a monthly social assistance benefit. This judgment, with its written reasons, was served on the applicant on 28 April 2006.
7.  On an unspecified later date the applicant was granted, by a decision of an official of the court's registry, legal aid for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.
8.  By a further decision of a registry official given on 25 April 2006 the registry requested the local Bar Association to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case. That order was complied with on 12 June 2006.
9.  On 19 June 2006 the Gdańsk Bar informed the court that Mr M. S. had been assigned to the case. Mr M.S. was so informed on 20 June 2006.
10.  On 21 June 2006 he examined the case file and found that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had expired on 28 May 2006.
11.  By a letter to the court dated 1 July 2006 the lawyer informed the court that he saw no legal grounds on which he could draft a cassation appeal. He presented a detailed legal analysis of the case and an explanation why he considered that legal grounds for a cassation appeal did not obtain. He further observed that in the circumstances of the case he could not, in any event, be required to prepare an appeal, having been served with the judgment after the time-limit for its submission had already expired.
3.  The applicant, a former lieutenant, was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul.
4.  After being expelled from the armed forces for disciplinary and ethical reasons, mainly on account of his excessive indebtedness and his failure to discharge his debts, the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence for the annulment of the expulsion order.
5.  An action for fraud was subsequently filed against the applicant before the criminal courts.
6.  The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court regarding the applicant’s expulsion, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.
7.  On 11 November 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing, which the applicant attended, and on 30 March 2004 it rejected the applicant’s case. The court refused to hear the applicant’s witnesses, holding that the witness statements would not make any difference to the applicant’s position in the circumstances of the present case and that the examination could be sufficiently conducted on the basis of the documents in the case file.
8.  On 6 July 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s rectification request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Berlin. He studied educational science and aircraft engineering and piloting in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). From 1969 until 1990 he worked for the GDR airline Interflug.
5.  On 4 December 2000 he applied for the transfer of alleged future pension rights under one of the additional pension schemes for certain professions or groups (Zusatzversorgungssysteme). On 20 February 2002 the applicant's request was dismissed. His subsequent administrative appeal, submitted on 13 March 2002, was rejected on 26 July 2002.
6.  On 30 August 2002 he brought an action in the Social Court, which, following a hearing on 20 January 2003, dismissed the action, finding that the applicant did not qualify for any of the additional pension schemes. The judgment was served on the applicant on 20 February 2003. On 18 March 2003 he appealed the judgment.
7.  On 18 June 2003 the Federal Social Court rendered a decision concerning a similar subject-matter, which was consistent with the Social Court's decision in the instant case. On 28 August 2003 the Social Court of Appeal advised the parties of the Federal Social Court's decision and classified the case as ready for decision.
8.  During the course of the appeal proceedings the applicant's representative declared that he was seeking fundamental clarification of the subject-matter before the Federal Constitutional Court. The Social Court of Appeal therefore awaited a decision of that court.
9.  On 24 April 2006 the judge rapporteur enquired whether the appeal was to continue after the Federal Constitutional Court on 1 March 2006 (file no. 1 BvR 320/06) had declined to admit for examination a constitutional complaint in a similar case.
10.  On 8 May 2006 the applicant's representative announced that he would submit further observations until 30 June 2006. After a reminder of the Social Court of Appeal on 15 August 2006 these observations were submitted on 20 December 2006.
11.  On 16 February 2007 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and refused to grant leave to appeal on points of law. On 15 March 2007 the judgment was served on the applicant's representative.
12.  Within the statutory time limit the applicant's representative objected to the refusal to grant leave to appeal on points of law and reasoned the objection on 15 June 2007. On 22 January 2008 the Federal Social Court dismissed the objection as inadmissible. This decision was served on the applicant's representative on 1 February 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 1 and 11 August 2003 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed the applicant's objections to a notification of enforcement and its costs. The decisions were served on the applicant on 13 September 2003.
6.  On 10 January 2000 enforcement proceedings were initiated against the applicant before the Bratislava IV District Court.
7.  On three occasions the District Court submitted prematurely the case file to the Bratislava Regional Court. On 30 May 2003 the Regional Court decided not to exclude the District Court judge for bias.
8.  On 10 December 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings and the decision was confirmed by the Regional Court on 24 September 2004.
9.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the above proceedings before the Bratislava IV District Court. On 28 April 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted his length of proceedings complaint in respect of proceedings 15 E 22/00 and rejected the remainder as having been lodged outside the statutory two‑month time-limit.
10.  On 18 August 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava IV District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. The Constitutional Court further concluded that the finding of a violation represented in itself sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case. It reasoned its decision not to award any just satisfaction with reference to the position of the applicant in the enforcement proceedings, the applicant being the party liable. It further noted that it had been the applicant's conduct that had given rise to enforcement of the decision in issue. It further reasoned that, if the applicant had complied with the enforcement decision, the enforcement proceedings would never have had to be brought.